Wilger v. Wis. Traction, Light, Heat & Power Co.

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: VINJE
• Citation: Wilger v. Wis. Traction, Light, Heat & Power Co., 160 Wis. 654, 152 N.W. 414 (Wis. 1915)
• Decision Date: 04 May 1915
• Parties: WILGER v. WISCONSIN TRACTION, LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO.

160 Wis. 654

152 N.W. 414

WILGER

v.WISCONSIN TRACTION, LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 4, 1915.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Outagamie County; Thomas H. Ryan, Judge.

Action by Mary Wilger against the Wisconsin Traction, Light, Heat & Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Action to recover damages for the death of Joseph Wilger, an employé of the Fox River Valley Marble, Granite & Cut Stone Works, caused by his receiving an electric shock while touching or coming in close proximity to a switch in the marble works, the wires of which were supplied by the defendant with electric current through a set of transformers. The marble works was originally joined as a defendant, but the case as to it was settled for $900.

It appears that on September 17, 1910, the deceased, a tool sharpener, had worked in the forenoon. In the afternoon, at about half past 3, he returned for his umbrella. In one of the rooms in the plant was a pump for drawing drinking water run by electric power. The pump was operated by closing an ordinary three-prong knife electric switch located a few feet from it on a wall. In the forenoon of that day an employé named Carr had received a shock presumably upon touching a metal part of the switch. The deceased and one Schaeffler were discussing the fact that Carr had received a shock, and Schaeffler remarked that Carr must have touched a metal part or he would not have received a shock, to which the deceased replied, “Of course, he must have touched the metal, because I can see where his skin is hanging on the metal yet,” and he remarked that Carr must have been careless to get a shock. Two or three minutes later the deceased, apparently addressing his remarks to Schaeffler, who was then looking out of a window, said, “I will show you.” Schaeffler, upon hearing these words, turned around and looked at the deceased, who was then standing in front of the switch in question some 14 feet away, saw him put the knuckle of the little finger of his right hand against or close up to the metal part of the switch. The contact or proximity of the knuckle to the metal was followed by a flash, and the deceased, after staggering for a moment, fell to the floor, and died apparently instantaneously and without regaining consciousness. At the time of the flash Schaeffler, who had started to walk toward the deceased when he turned around, was about 6 feet away and was looking at what deceased was doing. The knuckle of the little finger of his right hand was afterwards found to be burned. At the time he received the shock he stood upon a cement floor which was wet in spots and dry in spots.

Plaintiff claims the defendant was negligent in permitting one of its transformers to become out of repair by reason of which a current of high potential, in excess of 250 volts, and dangerous to human life, was allowedto reach the switch in question. The jury found:

“(1) That deceased came to his death by coming in contact with the switch in question; (2) that one of the transformers through which power was supplied to the motor operating the pump was so damaged and out of repair at the time deceased was killed as to permit a high potential current in excess of 250 volts and dangerous to human life to reach the switch; (3) that such condition of disrepair had existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, ought to have known and remedied the same before the accident; (4) that the defendant was negligent in permitting said current to enter the plant of the marble works; (5) that such negligence was the proximate cause of the death of deceased; (6) that no want of ordinary care and prudence on the part of deceased contributed to his death; and (7) damages $3,000 from traction company, which, with the $900 heretofore received, makes $3,900.”

From a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $3,000 and costs entered upon the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Van Dyke, Shaw, Muskat & Van Dyke, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

Martin, Martin & Martin, of Green Bay, for respondent.

VINJE, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Defendant presents three grounds upon which the judgment should be reversed: First, because it does not appear that the transformer was...